You've got it the wrong way round. PEF files are a lot smaller than DNG files. They are compressed, DNG are not.

The compression is lossless, so there is no pain, only gain.

G

You don't seem to be a very happy bunny. Perhaps you would find solace within the pages of DPReview, where the contributors specialise in looking at the dark side of life.

Here, we tend to be more upbeat.

G

And what is the point of yours?

G

No.

The wireless flash works by emitting a burst of brief flashes to tell the slave how much light to put out. Then it fires once more to trigger the slave.

The studio flash will be triggered by the initial burst, which is not what you want.

You can either put an old manual flash on the camera, and use that to trigger the Bowens, or use a radio trigger. You can get cheap one for a tenner, or good ones for a lot more.

G

Ambitious, not ambicious.

G

I strongly suggest you consider a 100mm macro if macro is what you want. 50mm is OK for copying documents, but for things like bugs the extra reach of a 100mm (or best of all, a 200mm) lens makes a big difference.

Macros from any manufacturer are likely to be pretty sharp, so just look out for the best deal you can get. The various flavours of the Tamron 90mm are well-regarded, and the Pentax F and FA 100mm macros are lovely.

G

You're right. If you are caught speeding in Europe by Interpol, they will add points to your licence.

G

Please try again. Looks rather interesting.

G

Brian,

I think it is fair to say that what I don't like is the approach you have taken to processing, rather than to the pictures themselves (prior to post-processing).

I really hate the artifical look, unless a highly-stylised look is intended (as it is with Benjikan's pictures, for example).

As I said in my post, if that was the effect you were trying to create, then who am I to argue? But for pictures of a real person, I think this approach to presenting the image doesn't work at all. It's de-humanising - in my opinion.

But it's all subjective, so you can accord my views as much or as little weight as you wish. I was afraid you might be offended, but it was not my purpose to offend, just to give you my quite strongly-felt response.

Some people's pictures evoke no reaction at all!

G

Brian,

I'm sorry to say this, but I think these are terrible.

You have taken what are basically quite nice shots, and then (IMO) destroyed them by over-processing.

The poor girl no longer looks human.

The images look as though they were produced using an air-brush. Now, this may be what you wanted to do, and if so, fair enough, but to me they have passed right out of the realm of photography.

I'm sure that if you started again and employed a much lighter touch with the smoothing you would get a far nicer result.

Sorry to be brutally frank, but unless I am very much out on a limb here, I think those people who have replied so far have been skirting the issue. Elephant in the room syndrome.

Best wishes

G